Background
A doctor who lost his job after he refused to comply with his employer’s vaccine mandate was unable to persuade a federal appeals court to order his reinstatement.
Dr. Paul Halczenko worked at St. Vincent Hospital, which adopted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate the summer of 2021. Halczenko treated very sick children in a pediatric intensive care unit.
The hospital made medical and religious exemptions to the vaccine requirement available. Those who did not qualify had to be vaccinated by mid-November of 2021.
When reviewing requests for exemptions, the hospital looked at the position held by the employee as well as the amount of contact they had with others, the current risk posed by COVID-19 and the availability of other safety measures.
Scenario
Halczenko sought a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate. The hospital denied his request, saying that granting it would impose too heavy of a burden on it in light of his position.
Halczenko responded to the hospital’s denial of his exemption request by filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission administrative charge of unlawful religious discrimination. The hospital suspended him without pay in November, and it terminated his employment in January of 2022.
He says he has tried to find similar work at other hospitals, with no luck. He attributes the lack of success to a non-compete agreement he signed with St. Vincent, his preference not to move, and limited demand for doctors in his area of specialization who refuse to comply with a vaccine mandate.
In November of 2021, Halczenko joined four other St. Vincent employees in a lawsuit that accused the hospital of violating Title VII by denying their requests for a religious exemption to the vaccine requirement.
The court’s decision in the case says that after the lawsuit was filed, the hospital “afforded the other named plaintiffs – a nurse practitioner and three nurses, including two on the pediatric ICU – religious accommodations.” That left only Halczenko as a plaintiff denied relief, and he asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would require the hospital to reinstate him.
The trial court denied Halczenko’s request. It said he did not show irreparable harm or that there was no adequate remedy at law for him.
It added that a permanent loss of employment, by itself, is not irreparable harm. It also pointed out that Halczenko might be able to gain
|